[SHOP US, SHIP KOREA] From $7.50 (1LB) + $1.74 per pound only! Use the Ohmyzip U.S. a tax-free state address as your shipping address at checkout. Sign up now to get a 10% off coupon on shipping. <Freight Forwarding Service / Courier Service>

But this isn't incompatible with globalism. Would you be opposed to a global union of nations structured similar to that of the the US (assuming the structure of the US government fits your description above)?

In other words, do you take issue with the structure of the EU or with the general project of building international organizations?

The EU is not an international organization, it's an international government. International organizations are something like NATO or FIFA or UNICEF.

If you're going to have a common currency, you essentially have to surrender your sovereignty. You cannot have a common currency and national independence and have it be sustainable (unless you're a microstate). We have seen the pitfalls and what it means for the governments of the countries.

We can still have international cooperation and agreements and markets WITHOUT the EU. In fact, the relationship between Canada-Australia-New Zealand-UK has been much more stable despite separate governments and currencies. Would you be in favor of them forming a Commonwealth Parliament, Commission, and Presidency which would dictate markets, form a common currency, mandate restrictions, and see you in Canada, ruled again by England or Australia? If you lean labour, would you enjoy being ruled by a Tory government in the UK? Or perhaps lets bring America back into the fold and you can be ruled by Trump.

Or actually, you'd probably end up ruled by George W. Bush, given that the EU governments tend to elect people who recently lost elections in their own countries.

Is faith in the EU really based on a rational belief in its organization and structure? Or is it a combination of irrational fear of "the war that might be" combined with wanting to FEEL enlightened and humanist?

Quote

Right. So you would rather have a Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin as long as he's not abloody foreigner

Teresa May is not Pol Pot. Give me a freaking break. Yes, I would rather have America under the administration of Andrew Johnson or Andrew Jackson or George W. Bush or Warren G. Harding or Richard Nixon than Jean-Claude Juncker or Martin Schulz or Herman Van Rompuy.

The thing with national sovereignty is that once you give it up, it's really hard to get it back. Great Britain isn't a full member and look at the tumult. Now imagine if you're one of the countries IN the Eurozone.

And lastly, you seem to assume that the EU will always be "good" for some reason I cannot fathom. What happens if the EU ever becomes "bad" or "evil"? How exactly are you going to hold its leaders to account? What leverage would you have over them?

But this isn't incompatible with globalism. Would you be opposed to a global union of nations structured similar to that of the the US (assuming the structure of the US government fits your description above)?

In other words, do you take issue with the structure of the EU or with the general project of building international organizations?

We can still have international cooperation and agreements and markets WITHOUT the EU. In fact, the relationship between Canada-Australia-New Zealand-UK has been much more stable despite separate governments and currencies. Would you be in favor of them forming a Commonwealth Parliament, Commission, and Presidency which would dictate markets, form a common currency, mandate restrictions, and see you in Canada, ruled again by England or Australia? If you lean labour, would you enjoy being ruled by a Tory government in the UK? Or perhaps lets bring America back into the fold and you can be ruled by Trump.

Yeah, I get that you're not a fan of the EU. I'm more interested in your opinion on international governments and organizations in general (as both of those are what I would call "globalist" projects).

To answer your question, I don't mind the idea of international governments on a philosophical level. I wouldn't mind being ruled by someone like Trump from a different country any more than I mind being ruled by the real Trump of my own country. So long as my city, state, and country retain some amount of autonomy, I don't see it as being much different.

I understand the practical considerations and I respect them. It might even be impossible for a global or semi-global government to run effectively. I'm just more interested in the philosophical justifications for supporting or resisting the movement.

Yeah, I get that you're not a fan of the EU. I'm more interested in your opinion on international governments and organizations in general (as both of those are what I would call "globalist" projects).

To answer your question, I don't mind the idea of international governments on a philosophical level. I wouldn't mind being ruled by someone like Trump from a different country any more than I mind being ruled by the real Trump of my own country. So long as my city, state, and country retain some amount of autonomy, I don't see it as being much different.

I understand the practical considerations and I respect them. It might even be impossible for a global or semi-global government to run effectively. I'm just more interested in the philosophical justifications for supporting or resisting the movement.

We are a long long long looooooonnnnnngggggg ways away from humanity being ready for any kind of international government beyond the UN. I think that's about as powerful as we can let an international government become at this stage.

The worst thing about international governments are their arrogance and hubris. The people who seek to establish them invariably have an overinflated sense of their own self-worth and lack of appreciation for how error prone and corruptible people are.

I don't want to be ruled by Trudeau or Putin or Juncker or whoever. No organization or country has reached the point where I would be comfortable with that. Not even close. The gap between a Merkel and a Putin, in real development terms, is about the distance from my cuticle to me knuckle on the scale of development. We have quite a ways to go.

The fact is it boils down to human nature- Humans are not inherently good and are incredibly susceptible to corruption. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot. While some global government or EU or might start out well, it will become corrupt or functionless or something else. That autonomy you say you wish you retained, will inevitably stripped away because people seek power and control. It is in their nature.

Yeah, I get that you're not a fan of the EU. I'm more interested in your opinion on international governments and organizations in general (as both of those are what I would call "globalist" projects).

To answer your question, I don't mind the idea of international governments on a philosophical level. I wouldn't mind being ruled by someone like Trump from a different country any more than I mind being ruled by the real Trump of my own country. So long as my city, state, and country retain some amount of autonomy, I don't see it as being much different.

I understand the practical considerations and I respect them. It might even be impossible for a global or semi-global government to run effectively. I'm just more interested in the philosophical justifications for supporting or resisting the movement.

The fact is it boils down to human nature- Humans are not inherently good and are incredibly susceptible to corruption. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot. While some global government or EU or might start out well, it will become corrupt or functionless or something else. That autonomy you say you wish you retained, will inevitably stripped away because people seek power and control. It is in their nature.

Right. Humans are also not inherently evil and are incredibly susceptible to be well socialized. And I don't see why your argument about global governments wouldn't equally apply to national governments. I agree we have a loooooooooooong way to go and it would have to be in small steps, but I don't see it as an inherently doomed project.

Humans are also not inherently evil and are incredibly susceptible to be well socialized. And I don't see why your argument about global governments wouldn't equally apply to national governments.

Everything in human history proves the opposite.

I don't know if you've studied history much, but basically humans strive to amass wealth power and influence over others. Once they get it, they start oppressing others in order to enrich themselves further. People are corrupt, and power corrupts them even further.

Quote

I agree we have a loooooooooooong way to go and it would have to be in small steps, but I don't see it as an inherently doomed project.

So you want to ignore the lessons of history and instead centralize power even more, into even fewer hands, and hope for the best?

but basically humans strive to amass wealth power and influence over others. Once they get it, they start oppressing others in order to enrich themselves further. People are corrupt, and power corrupts them even further.

Oversimplification of human nature [check]

Quote

So you want to ignore the lessons of history and instead centralize power even more, into even fewer hands, and hope for the best?

Begging the question [check]

Nice, you're pretty good at this. I can play too. You're like a abecedarian Machiavelli. I suggest you branch out from your "historical" approach and try taking a look at some more scientific approaches to questions about human nature. And, for what it's worth, power can be broad without being overly centralized. But I'm sure that's another black and white issue for you.

I don't enjoy being attacked by someone I was perfectly civil towards.

Quote

Quote

Everything in human history proves the opposite.

Misleading at best.

So try to make a convincing argument.

Commiting ad-homs just because you're in a corner isn't going to cut it.

Quote

And, for what it's worth, power can be broad without being overly centralized.

Thats not what happens and neither is it the system you are supporting. Lets see, you have made excuses for the totally undemocratic EU and now you're making positive noises about Chinas hideous social credit system. So you not only want people controlled and dominated by a central government, you want technology to make it absolutely inescapable for them.

Thats not what happens and neither is it the system you are supporting. Lets see, you have made excuses for the totally undemocratic EU and now you're making positive noises about Chinas hideous social credit system. So you not only want people controlled and dominated by a central government, you want technology to make it absolutely inescapable for them.

I think you should read what I wrote about China again. 'Tino said we have something similar in the US and I said China's system is far worse.

Also, I don't see why I should take the time to make a convincing argument when all you've thrown out are a few unsupported oversimplifications ("basically humans strive to amass wealth power and influence over others" and "people are corrupt") and some condescension ("I don't know if you've studied history much...").

If you want to provide any data or evidence proving humans are inherently corrupt (other than """look at history bro""") then go for it. If you want to argue that everything in human history proves that humans are inherently evil... uhhhh good luck (but I'm sure you already know that you can't prove that).

I know I'm not going to change your mind (and if we keep going like this, you're not going to change mine either), so I'd rather not waste anyone's time. Honestly, if you hadn't suggested that I'm ignorant of history, I probably wouldn't have responded the first time. Again, if you hadn't mischaracterized what I said about China, I probably wouldn't have responded this time.

Happy Saturday!

Logged

sligo

As people voted for ideas, notions, lies and possibilities; most of which could never happen individually, let alone together as part of a deal, the original vote is kind of meaningless. The deal that is on the table bears little to no resemblance to the wishes of the people in 2016. What is more, those who were 16 and denied a voice in a deal that will affect them for longer than any other Brits, can now legally have a say. There should be a second referendum, because now there can be no lies. The deal on the table IS Brexit. There can be no uncertainty, and no dead end arguments about what leave "may" mean.

When the referendum happened, the remain side were the only ones who had any idea what a victory would represent. The hyperbole of the leave camp stating "it will be the easiest deal in history" mislead a large number, and in truth, leave was just a notion, and only NOW can people see what it means.

Now there is a deal, a second referendum should be offered where the 2 choices are final, concrete and objective. Brexit will really mean Brexit!

Truth be told, these negotiation should have been done before the first referendum. The deal should have been published and the leave campaign should have argued based on the facts of the deal, not desires and possibilities. I guarantee, if people had the choice between remain, and this deal, remain would have won by a landslide!

Right. Humans are also not inherently evil and are incredibly susceptible to be well socialized. And I don't see why your argument about global governments wouldn't equally apply to national governments. I agree we have a loooooooooooong way to go and it would have to be in small steps, but I don't see it as an inherently doomed project.

Actually, humans ARE inherently evil. It's in our DNA. Yes we have the ability to cooperate, but it's usually for selfish purposes. Our species did not evolve with the purpose of living in harmony with nature and creating a harmonious, non predatory society. It evolved to ruthlessly compete, usually on a familial or tribal level. Our brains aren't even structured to process reality and you want them to create global idealized societies?

National governments are more easy to contain and overthrow than global governments. Look at the EU- once you get in, its almost impossible to get out unless the whole thing collapses. And if it does collapse, it will be catastrophic to an entire continent. National sovereignty is something that has been very hard to win and you should be very cautious in giving it up, because once you do so, you might never get it back.

If you want to provide any data or evidence proving humans are inherently corrupt (other than """look at history bro""") then go for it. If you want to argue that everything in human history proves that humans are inherently evil... uhhhh good luck (but I'm sure you already know that you can't prove that).

A bunch of psychological studies that have shown that humans will behave in an evil fashion at the drop of a hat when given power over other human beings, with many of these types of studies being no longer ethically permissible because of the distinct likelihood of criminal/civil liability being a result.

Look at the smoking threads- A simple trigger of physical disgust results in someone willing to deny other people the basic freedom of association, retroactively justified with science or "rights" to support their disgust-based legalism. As people have pointed out, there's no rational basis for the 2nd hand smoke on the sidewalk concern, nor is anyone forced to work or enter a smoking bar or club. Yet people's sense of disgust overrides their reason and causes them to demand control over other people in a bar or club they will never set foot in, nor want to set foot in.

As people voted for ideas, notions, lies and possibilities; most of which could never happen individually, let alone together as part of a deal, the original vote is kind of meaningless.

I think people understood it well around one core principle- Britain decides, not the EU.

Quote

There should be a second referendum, because now there can be no lies. The deal on the table IS Brexit. There can be no uncertainty, and no dead end arguments about what leave "may" mean.

I do agree that there is some validity on this argument, however the deal on the table IS NOT Brexit.

Britain should tell the EU to go eff itself and withdraw unilaterally. There will be painful moments. There were painful moments when India became independent. Same with the United States. But the long-term benefits will outweigh those costs. You will have your sovereignty, your birthright. That is worth more than any freedom of movement or favorable tariffs.

The deal should never have been negotiated by someone who didn't believe in it.

Quote

When the referendum happened, the remain side were the only ones who had any idea what a victory would represent.

This is a myth. I've yet to find a remainer who can even describe how the EU's government works and what bodies are responsible for what. Those that attempt to do so invariably have to check the internet. You ask people in any country how their government works and laws get made and they can tell you right off the top of their heads. Not with the EU.

That's really bad. In fact, to me that's disqualifying as a form of government. A government that functions like that CANNOT be accountable nor sustainable.

As people voted for ideas, notions, lies and possibilities; most of which could never happen individually, let alone together as part of a deal, the original vote is kind of meaningless.

I think people understood it well around one core principle- Britain decides, not the EU.

Quote

There should be a second referendum, because now there can be no lies. The deal on the table IS Brexit. There can be no uncertainty, and no dead end arguments about what leave "may" mean.

I do agree that there is some validity on this argument, however the deal on the table IS NOT Brexit.

Britain should tell the EU to go eff itself and withdraw unilaterally. There will be painful moments. There were painful moments when India became independent. Same with the United States. But the long-term benefits will outweigh those costs. You will have your sovereignty, your birthright. That is worth more than any freedom of movement or favorable tariffs.

The deal should never have been negotiated by someone who didn't believe in it.

Quote

When the referendum happened, the remain side were the only ones who had any idea what a victory would represent.

This is a myth. I've yet to find a remainer who can even describe how the EU's government works and what bodies are responsible for what. Those that attempt to do so invariably have to check the internet. You ask people in any country how their government works and laws get made and they can tell you right off the top of their heads. Not with the EU.

That's really bad. In fact, to me that's disqualifying as a form of government. A government that functions like that CANNOT be accountable nor sustainable.

1, This could be the most stupid thing you have ever posted. Every trade deal, every export licence, every import licence, every piece of legislation that allows movement of goods and individuals are all tied up in the EU membership deal. If the UK leaves with no deal:

All EU seasonal workers will have to leave, or reapply for their jobs via a visa the next day, basically every cleaner in the NHS, every fruit picker, and many factory workers that do jobs for minimum wage that UK workers don't want to do.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45714413

There were no cyber security issues, no global trade deals, no citizens living in other countries that may lose their homes, livelihoods or rights.

India was breaking ties with 1 country. the Uk will be breaking all ties with most of the world. All treaties are EU treaties, so leaving the EU means having to negotiate seperate treaties from scratch with pretty much every nation in the world. This could take decades.

The talk of this being a benefit to all, has changed to "Maybe in 50 years". This is what you get when you get the party that managed to double the national debt in a time of austerity, to do the negotiation.

Side note: Rees-Mogg , the Edwardian bell-end who has pushed so hard for Brexit, has moved all his assets to Ireland so he can still profit from the EU. Conservatives, the party of the (rich, elite, toffee-nosed-cunts, landed gentry) everyday people!

As for the remainers. they knew exactly what remain meant. It meant tomorrow will be the same as today. You don't know how an internal combustion engine works to know that the next number 2 bus will be along in 15 minutes!

If you want to provide any data or evidence proving humans are inherently corrupt (other than """look at history bro""") then go for it. If you want to argue that everything in human history proves that humans are inherently evil... uhhhh good luck (but I'm sure you already know that you can't prove that).

A bunch of psychological studies that have shown that humans will behave in an evil fashion at the drop of a hat when given power over other human beings, with many of these types of studies being no longer ethically permissible because of the distinct likelihood of criminal/civil liability being a result.

Humans will behave in an evil fashion =/= humans are inherently evil.

It's a stupid discussion to have started in the first place. I think we both know that you can't prove humans are inherently evil (as opposed to good). We have the capacity to behave "in an evil fashion" but that doesn't prove anything because we also have the capacity to behave in a moral fashion.

Nothing I have ever read on the topic has suggested that humans are mostly evil or err on the side of evil. If you have something that suggests humans are fundamentally evil, please share it.

As people voted for ideas, notions, lies and possibilities; most of which could never happen individually, let alone together as part of a deal, the original vote is kind of meaningless.

I think people understood it well around one core principle- Britain decides, not the EU.

Quote

There should be a second referendum, because now there can be no lies. The deal on the table IS Brexit. There can be no uncertainty, and no dead end arguments about what leave "may" mean.

I do agree that there is some validity on this argument, however the deal on the table IS NOT Brexit.

Britain should tell the EU to go eff itself and withdraw unilaterally. There will be painful moments. There were painful moments when India became independent. Same with the United States. But the long-term benefits will outweigh those costs. You will have your sovereignty, your birthright. That is worth more than any freedom of movement or favorable tariffs.

The deal should never have been negotiated by someone who didn't believe in it.

Quote

When the referendum happened, the remain side were the only ones who had any idea what a victory would represent.

This is a myth. I've yet to find a remainer who can even describe how the EU's government works and what bodies are responsible for what. Those that attempt to do so invariably have to check the internet. You ask people in any country how their government works and laws get made and they can tell you right off the top of their heads. Not with the EU.

That's really bad. In fact, to me that's disqualifying as a form of government. A government that functions like that CANNOT be accountable nor sustainable.

1, This could be the most stupid thing you have ever posted. Every trade deal, every export licence, every import licence, every piece of legislation that allows movement of goods and individuals are all tied up in the EU membership deal. If the UK leaves with no deal:

All EU seasonal workers will have to leave, or reapply for their jobs via a visa the next day, basically every cleaner in the NHS, every fruit picker, and many factory workers that do jobs for minimum wage that UK workers don't want to do.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45714413

There were no cyber security issues, no global trade deals, no citizens living in other countries that may lose their homes, livelihoods or rights.

India was breaking ties with 1 country. the Uk will be breaking all ties with most of the world. All treaties are EU treaties, so leaving the EU means having to negotiate seperate treaties from scratch with pretty much every nation in the world. This could take decades.

The talk of this being a benefit to all, has changed to "Maybe in 50 years". This is what you get when you get the party that managed to double the national debt in a time of austerity, to do the negotiation.

Side note: Rees-Mogg , the Edwardian bell-end who has pushed so hard for Brexit, has moved all his assets to Ireland so he can still profit from the EU. Conservatives, the party of the (rich, elite, toffee-nosed-cunts, landed gentry) everyday people!

As for the remainers. they knew exactly what remain meant. It meant tomorrow will be the same as today. You don't know how an internal combustion engine works to know that the next number 2 bus will be along in 15 minutes!

All minor setbacks which most probably won't come into fruition. Leavers also knew what remaining would entail, hence why they voted leave. I support a 'people's vote' because I don't know anyone who's changed their mind and I think Leave would win by a bigger margin this time, now that we've seen the EU's true colours.

There were no cyber security issues, no global trade deals, no citizens living in other countries that may lose their homes, livelihoods or rights.

Dude...Yeah, no one living in one country was worried about losing their homes and rights when India gained its independence. I mean, aside from that whole Pakistan thing, but whatever.

Yeah, just that whole hundreds of years of colonial rule punctuated by occasional machine-gunnings of hundreds of civilians, culminating in a violent separation and a couple of wars. But hey, that's small potatoes compared to cyber-security and trade deals.

Quote

The talk of this being a benefit to all, has changed to "Maybe in 50 years". This is what you get when you get the party that managed to double the national debt in a time of austerity, to do the negotiation.

Side note: Rees-Mogg , the Edwardian bell-end who has pushed so hard for Brexit, has moved all his assets to Ireland so he can still profit from the EU. Conservatives, the party of the (rich, elite, toffee-nosed-cunts, landed gentry) everyday people!

Yes, not everything about Leave is perfect 100% of the time. That doesn't have anything to do with the central issues- A) That your national sovereignty is an incredibly precious asset that should not be given away lightly for some trinkets like being able to vacation in Spain and cheaper goods and B) that the EU is a fundamentally flawed form of government and is inherently unaccountable and destined for failure.

Quote

As for the remainers. they knew exactly what remain meant. It meant tomorrow will be the same as today. You don't know how an internal combustion engine works to know that the next number 2 bus will be along in 15 minutes!

Thank you for admitting that the Remain campaign was based on ignorance and obliviousness.

There were no cyber security issues, no global trade deals, no citizens living in other countries that may lose their homes, livelihoods or rights.

Dude...Yeah, no one living in one country was worried about losing their homes and rights when India gained its independence. I mean, aside from that whole Pakistan thing, but whatever.

Yeah, just that whole hundreds of years of colonial rule punctuated by occasional machine-gunnings of hundreds of civilians, culminating in a violent separation and a couple of wars. But hey, that's small potatoes compared to cyber-security and trade deals.

Quote

The talk of this being a benefit to all, has changed to "Maybe in 50 years". This is what you get when you get the party that managed to double the national debt in a time of austerity, to do the negotiation.

Side note: Rees-Mogg , the Edwardian bell-end who has pushed so hard for Brexit, has moved all his assets to Ireland so he can still profit from the EU. Conservatives, the party of the (rich, elite, toffee-nosed-cunts, landed gentry) everyday people!

Yes, not everything about Leave is perfect 100% of the time. That doesn't have anything to do with the central issues- A) That your national sovereignty is an incredibly precious asset that should not be given away lightly for some trinkets like being able to vacation in Spain and cheaper goods and B) that the EU is a fundamentally flawed form of government and is inherently unaccountable and destined for failure.

Quote

As for the remainers. they knew exactly what remain meant. It meant tomorrow will be the same as today. You don't know how an internal combustion engine works to know that the next number 2 bus will be along in 15 minutes!

Thank you for admitting that the Remain campaign was based on ignorance and obliviousness.

Once again you go off topic, and down weird tangents to make points irrelevant to the topic. The Pakistan issue happened aftwr independence, so nothing to do with Indian independence. Also all existing EU laws will be sogned into the statute books, so not much sovereignty there. Also the EU will still be the main trade partner, so all manufacturing will have to abide by EU law still, in order to be accepted on the continent.

As for remain voters being ignorant (which i disagree with, and my point wasn't saying at all; do you have to know all aspects of something in order to benefit from it? Can you explain how the computer code for this forum platform works? You seem to benefit from it, does that mean you are ignorant?), is that better than buying a lie just because it was sugar coated?